6 ms·

I've been studying Leibniz recently and I'm excited to get to his treatment of Monads. The following is a little irrelevant to this post, but the title of this

I've been studying Leibniz recently and I'm excited to get to his treatment of Monads. The following is a little irrelevant to this post, but the title of this post stirred a relationship. So to Leibniz, in the conception of an entity's identity, he posits that one must include all propositions related to that entity. So when we try to consider a property of an object of our mind, we are basically saying "it is what it is." Saying that Einstein is German is like saying "Einstein is Einstein." Where this conception of including propositions in identities gets weird is that his formulation also includes future propositions. In this respect, only God can truly understand anything fully, because only he can tell the future and can get the full identity of things. So "x is x" shows up a lot. Edit: As mentioned, Leibniz Monad != the Monad of category theory. I suppose I'm just looking for any excuse to talk about Leibniz. Also, I did say I didn't even get to that topic yet. Consider this a peep about the duality of that term.

tel 9y ago
Different "monad", unfortunately.
- BucketSort 9y ago
  Forgive my ignorance!
rexpop 9y ago
This is awesome! I am definitely going to read some Leibniz after this. Would you recommend his Monadology? To say "only God can understand the future" is an unnecessary personification of our incompleteness. I think the future of declarative functions is pretty clear. Today foo(x) = 2x, tomorrow foo(x) = 2x. Anything we can't say is simply a dearth of information. How useful is it to say we've a dearth of "future information"? Anyway, we give names to sets of propositions, and that's a neat trick.
- catawbasam 9y ago
  "an unnecessary personification of our incompleteness." Not unnecessary according to Leibniz. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monadology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monadology
IgorPartola 9y ago
If god was all powerful, he could create a rock he himself could not lift. If god was all knowing, he could create a cryptosystem he himself could not break. God is a bad measure of physical properties. Some things are just unknown.
- boulos 9y ago
  I was expecting you to add: "Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?" https://youtu.be/JhhXCuUG2pw https://youtu.be/JhhXCuUG2pw
- posterboy 9y ago
  Chuck Norris could create a rock so heavy he himself could not lift it ... and then he would lift it.
  - yeahGreat 9y ago
    It's not funny anymore.

tel 9y ago

Different "monad", unfortunately.

BucketSort 9y ago
Forgive my ignorance!

rexpop 9y ago

This is awesome! I am definitely going to read some Leibniz after this. Would you recommend his Monadology? To say "only God can understand the future" is an unnecessary personification of our incompleteness. I think the future of declarative functions is pretty clear. Today foo(x) = 2x, tomorrow foo(x) = 2x. Anything we can't say is simply a dearth of information. How useful is it to say we've a dearth of "future information"? Anyway, we give names to sets of propositions, and that's a neat trick.

catawbasam 9y ago
"an unnecessary personification of our incompleteness." Not unnecessary according to Leibniz. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monadology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monadology

IgorPartola 9y ago

If god was all powerful, he could create a rock he himself could not lift. If god was all knowing, he could create a cryptosystem he himself could not break. God is a bad measure of physical properties. Some things are just unknown.

boulos 9y ago
I was expecting you to add: "Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?" https://youtu.be/JhhXCuUG2pw https://youtu.be/JhhXCuUG2pw
posterboy 9y ago
Chuck Norris could create a rock so heavy he himself could not lift it ... and then he would lift it.
- yeahGreat 9y ago
  It's not funny anymore.